Answer:Not by any definition of the term that mainstream socialists would consider acceptable.

It’s true that both the Bush and Obama administrations introduced government subsidies in industries that the government has not historically subsidized to the same extent, but this is not, strictly speaking, a socialist move because it does nothing to concentrate power over the businesses in the hands of workers, nor have the government subsidies even begun to approach a scale that would satisfy even the most flexible definitions of socialism.

In order to be a socialist, Obama would have to favor the large-scale collective ownership of private enterprise and the redistribution of wealth based on labor. The fact that he supports some policies that reduce the relative power of the rich, and increase the relative power of the poor, does not make him a socialist by any useful standard. … Read More